4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Frankenthal. She was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings before the national authorities and courts.
5.  On 9 December 1987 the applicant was operated at the lymphatic gland by doctor M. In the course of that operation, her cranial nerve was damaged. As a consequence, she could no longer properly move her head and shoulders and suffered from considerable pain and a loss of sensibility of her neck and her right arm and hand. Because of this, the applicant became partially unfit for work in her former job as a cleaning lady. She has not been working since her operation and has been living on social security benefits.
6.  On 30 March 1989 the applicant, following a suggestion of the defendant's medical malpractice insurance company, had recourse to the arbitration board of the Rhineland-Palatinate Medical Council (Landesärztekammer). On 12 June 1990 expert B., who had been called to give an opinion, found that doctor M. had caused an avoidable paralysis of the applicant's cranial nerve by improper medical treatment. On 1 February 1991 the commission of experts of the arbitration board expressed the opinion that the applicant could not be expected to subject herself to another operation aimed at reconstructing the cranial nerve due to the risk that her state of health might deteriorate following such surgery.
7.  The medical malpractice insurance company of doctor M. subsequently refused to pay the compensation for non-pecuniary damage and the occupational disability pension claimed by the applicant.
8.  On 12 March 1991 the applicant brought an action for damages against doctor M. in the Frankenthal Regional Court. She claimed to be paid 12,000 Deutschmarks (DEM) in compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by medical malpractice and a monthly occupational disability pension of DEM 1,800. She further requested the court to establish by declaratory judgment that the defendant was obliged to compensate her for any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage she suffered or would suffer in the future from the incorrect medical treatment.
9.  On 23 April 1991 the Frankenthal Regional Court decided to grant the applicant legal aid.
10.  On 17 September 1991 the Frankenthal Regional Court held an oral hearing in which it made a friendly settlement proposal.
11.  In a further hearing held on 19 November 1991 the applicant rejected the court's friendly settlement proposal which had previously been accepted by the defendant. The Regional Court requested the applicant further to reason her damages claim by submitting documents.
12.  On 14 January 1992 the Regional Court appointed an expert for neurology, H., to give an opinion about the consequences of the paralysis of the applicant's cranial nerve on her capacity to perform manual work, in particular in her former job as a cleaning lady and in her own household.
13.  On 25 February 1992 the applicant was medically examined by the expert for neurology, who rendered his report on 26 March 1992.
14.  On 30 April 1992 the expert for neurology gave another report.
15.  On 22 September 1992 the Regional Court appointed a further orthopaedic expert to give an opinion on the question of whether the applicant would have been healed if she had subjected herself to another operation aimed at reconstructing the cranial nerve.
16.  On 25 February 1993 the orthopaedic expert, He., rendered his report.
17.  On 6 July 1993 the Regional Court held a hearing in which the parties concluded a revocable friendly settlement. The applicant validly revoked the agreement on 20 July 1993.
18.  On 1 November 1993 the expert for neurology supplemented his report on the court's request by giving an opinion on questions concerning the degree of the applicant's incapacity to work.
19.  On 8 March 1994 the Regional Court held another hearing.
20.  On 26 April 1994 the Regional Court requested the transmittal of the case-file concerning the applicant from the Landau Pension Office (Versorgungsamt). The applicant failed to give her necessary consent until 5 January 1995. The files reached the Regional Court on 2 February 1995.
21.  On 8 February 1995 the Regional Court, in view of the contents of the case-file transmitted by the Pension Office, requested the expert for neurology to give another supplementary medical advice notably on the applicant's objection that the degree of her disability was higher than the 40 per cent diagnosed by the expert.
22.  On 18 March 1995 the expert for neurology gave the supplementary report to his medical opinion requested.
23.  On 2 April and 6 May 1995 the applicant complained to the Regional Court about the length of the proceedings.
24.  On 4 July 1995 the Regional Court held another oral hearing. It proposed the parties to reach a friendly settlement of their case, with the defendant paying a lump sum of DEM 100,000 to the applicant. The applicant subsequently failed to accept the terms of the settlement.
25.  On 19 September 1995 the Frankenthal Regional Court delivered its judgment (running to ten pages). It ordered the defendant to pay to the applicant DEM 12,000 in non-pecuniary damages and a monthly pension of DEM 720 compensating her loss of earnings as of 12 June 1991. It further declared that the defendant had to indemnify the applicant for all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage incurred by the incorrect medical treatment.
26.  On 4 October 1995 the judgment was served on the applicant.
b.  Proceedings in the Zweibrücken Court of Appeal
27.  On 6 November 1995 both the applicant and doctor M. lodged an appeal against the Regional Court's judgment, which they reasoned on 3 January and 9 January 1996 respectively.
28.  On 26 March 1996 the Zweibrücken Court of Appeal granted the applicant legal aid.
29.  In a letter dated 11 October 1996 the applicant urged the Court of Appeal to further the proceedings in view of the fact that they had lasted already for many years. On 19 October 1996 the Court of Appeal informed the applicant that despite the court's workload the case would be heard in due course.
30.  On 10 December 1996 the Court of Appeal heard the parties' representatives and ordered the applicant to submit further information and documents concerning her claim until 30 January 1997.
31.  On 19 June 1997 the Court of Appeal discontinued the proceedings pending the outcome of the applicant's request lodged with the Rhineland‑Palatinate Insurance Institution to be granted an occupational disability pension. Both parties had agreed to the court's proposal to proceed in this manner. The Court of Appeal made a friendly settlement proposal to the parties, which, after further correspondence between the parties and the court, was subsequently rejected by the defendant.
32.  By letters dated 20 October and 1 December 1998 the applicant complained to the Court of Appeal that there has not been a hearing since December 1996 and about the protracted length of the proceedings.
33.  On 28 September 1999 the Court of Appeal, having heard the parties in court, decided that the proceedings should remain suspended until the termination of the applicant's proceedings in the social courts concerning her motion to be granted an occupational disability pension. It agreed with the parties that the amount of the applicant's pension claim against doctor M. depended on the outcome of these proceedings.
34.  On 7 March 2001 the Court of Appeal, having obtained the applicant's consent requested on 10 January 2001, consulted the files of the applicant's proceedings in the social courts in which, in particular, further expert reports had been rendered as to the applicant's incapacity for work.
35.  On 6 February 2001, following the termination of the proceedings in the social courts, the Speyer Insurance Institution issued a new notice of pension to the applicant, granting her a monthly occupational disability pension of some DEM 1,024 as of March 2001. A copy of the decision reached the Court of Appeal on 23 April 2001.
36.  On 22 May 2001 the Court of Appeal resumed the proceedings and held a hearing. It set the parties a deadline until 12 June 2001 to declare whether they agreed to the terms of a friendly settlement of the case proposed by the court.
37.  On 6 June 2001 the applicant lodged a motion to resume the hearing in order to examine her capability of being a party to an action (Prozessfähigkeit) and to allow her the extension of her claim.
38.  On 3 July 2001 the Zweibrücken Court of Appeal delivered its judgment (running to 16 pages). Modifying the Regional Court's judgment in this respect, it ruled that doctor M. had to pay the applicant a monthly pension of some DEM 775 compensating her loss of earnings, but only as of 1 June 2001. It observed that the applicant could not claim a higher amount of pension, as, pursuant to the notice of pension dated 6 February 2001, she also received a monthly occupational disability pension of DEM 1,024 by the Insurance Institution after 1 June 2001. She could not, therefore, claim that additional amount from the defendant herself in the future as her claim had passed to the Insurance Institution in this respect. Moreover, having regard to the fact that the applicant had already in the past received social security benefits, the court found that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence that she still had a claim herself for the period of time preceding 1 June 2001, despite the court's repeated invitations to do so. Apart from that, the Court of Appeal upheld the remainder of the Regional Court's judgment.
c.  Proceedings in the Federal Court of Justice
39.  On 5 March 2002 the Federal Court of Justice granted the applicant legal aid for the proceedings concerning the appeal on points of law lodged by doctor M. while refusing to grant her legal aid for lodging an appeal on points of law herself.
40.  On 18 June 2002 the Federal Court of Justice refused to admit the applicant's appeal on points of law as it had no prospects of success. It decided to admit doctor M.'s appeal on points of law in so far as he complained against the order to pay pension to the applicant after 30 June 2026.
41.  In its judgment delivered on 5 November 2002 (running to five pages), the Federal Court of Justice, after having held a hearing, partly modified the judgment of the Court of Appeal. It held that doctor M. was obliged to pay the applicant a monthly pension compensating her loss of earnings of some DEM 775 as of 1 June 2001, but only until 30 June 2026. In that month the applicant would attain the age of 65 and would have retired if she had worked.
42.  The judgment was served on the applicant on 9 December 2002.
d.  Proceedings in the Federal Constitutional Court
43.  On 8 January 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court. She argued, in particular, that her right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 2 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 20 § 3 of the Basic Law, had been breached, as the length of her proceedings in the civil courts had been excessive. She further argued that her right to general freedom of action (allgemeine Handlungsfreiheit) as protected by Article 2 § 1 of the Basic Law had been violated because the civil courts had dismissed her claim to be paid a pension also after she had attained the age of 65.
44.  On 17 January 2003 the Registry of the Federal Constitutional Court informed the applicant that it was doubtful whether she had sufficiently substantiated her constitutional complaint within the one-month time-limit. It argued that the copy of the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice had reached the Constitutional Court only one day after the expiry of that time‑limit.
45.  On 29 January 2003 the applicant requested to be restored to her original legal position, adding a copy of the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice of 5 November 2002. The Government claimed that page 4 of that judgment, containing the reasoning of the court, was missing in that request. This was contested by the applicant.
46.  On 19 February 2003 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the applicant's constitutional complaint. It found that it was not necessary to decide on the applicant's motion to be restored to her original legal position as, in any event, the applicant's complaint did not concern matters of fundamental significance from a constitutional law perspective. Adjudicating on the applicant's complaint was also not necessary in order to enforce the fundamental rights invoked by her. Even assuming that she had submitted a copy of the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice within the prescribed time-limit for filing the fully documented constitutional complaint, her complaint had no prospects of success. The applicant's submissions did not warrant the conclusion that this judgment violated the rights invoked by the applicant.
47.  The decision was served on the applicant's representative on 27 February 2003.